本文认为，某些词在社区中的意义如此之高，以至于它们可能会阻止每个参与者处于平等地位的讨论。这些话确实要么被一致接受，要么被拒绝。这些形容词组的存在促使反对者找到规避它们的修辞策略。我们要发展的主要思想是，由于某些特定的价值承载词 (VBW)，某些命题在上下文中不容易辩论，而本文的目标之一是构建一种方法论工具来查找和分类这些 VBW (重点放在评价形容词上）。我们的研究呼应了“文化关键词”的重要性（正如 Wierzbicka 所报道的，通过关键词了解文化：英语、俄语、波兰语、德语和日语，1997) 在论证中（如 Rigotti & Rocci 所报道的，实践中的论证，2005），而是基于（如 Dieckmann 所报道的，政治中的语言：Einführung in die Pragmatik und Semantik der politischen，1975 所报道的） ），（如 Strauss 和 Zifonun 的报道，Der politische Wortschatz，1986），以及（如 Girnth、Sprache und Sprachverwendung in der Politik 的报道：Eine Einführung in die linguistische Analyze öffentlich-politischer Kommunikation）和“20M”反米兰达”字样在这里得到了扩展和提炼。特别是，我们的研究试图理解为什么在对名为“提供更多经济适用房”。这种背景是富有成效的，因为两方为两个对立的政策主张提供了理由：即接受或拒绝倡议。当一方使用包含这种普遍无懈可击的形容词组的论点来为“是”投票辩护时（在我们的示例中，请求提供更多的经济适用房租金），对方不能在请求“否”投票时使用对称的反义词。这里提出的方法论工具可以阐明在冲突的政策命题背景下使用某些修辞和参考策略。恳求更多的经济适用房租金），对方不能使用对称的反义词，同时恳求“不”的投票。这里提出的方法论工具可以阐明在冲突的政策命题背景下使用某些修辞和参考策略。恳求更多的经济适用房租金），对方不能使用对称的反义词，同时恳求“不”的投票。这里提出的方法论工具可以阐明在冲突的政策命题背景下使用某些修辞和参考策略。
"点击查看英文标题和摘要"
When Evaluative Adjectives Prevent Contradiction in a Debate
This paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words (VBWs), and one of the goals of this paper is to build a methodological tool for finding and classifying these VBWs (with a focus on evaluative adjectives). Our study echoes the importance of “cultural keywords” (as reported by Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, 1997) in argument (as reported by Rigotti & Rocci, Argumentation in practice, 2005), but is rather based on a German approach developed by (as reported by Dieckmann, Sprache in der Politik: Einführung in die Pragmatik und Semantik der politischen, 1975), (as reported by Strauss and Zifonun, Der politische Wortschatz, 1986), and (as reported by Girnth, Sprache und Sprachverwendung in der Politik: Eine Einführung in die linguistische Analyse öffentlich-politischer Kommunikation, 2015) about “Miranda” and “Anti-Miranda” words that is expanded and refined here. In particular, our study tries to understand why some statements, fueled by appreciative (Tseronis, 2014) or evaluative adjectives, have such rhetorical effects on a pragmatic level in the particular context of a vote on the Swiss popular initiative called “for more affordable housing”. This context is fruitful since two parties offer reasons for two opposing policy claims: namely, to accept or to reject an initiative. When one party uses arguments containing such universally unassailable adjectival groups to defend a “yes” vote (in our example, pleading for more affordable housing rents), the opposing party cannot use a symmetrical antonym while pleading for the “no” vote. The methodological tool that is proposed here could shed light on the use of certain rhetorical and referential strategies in conflicting policy proposition contexts.
京公网安备 11010802027423号